Need help finding an argument made

[noxagol]

I'm debating on another forum the issue of gun control. Instead of taking the typical argument of saying guns are OK and this and that and debating what gun is OK to have and what is not OK to have, I decided to pull the rug completely from underneath everyone and declare that the government cannot even decide to regulate guns, let alone anything. I used the following argument.

IF: (Assumed true unless you can prove them false)
-An individual or group of individuals cannot does not have the power to tell another individual or group of individual what they can and cannot do with their property.

-Something cannot derive a power from its source that its source does not have

-Government derives its power from the individuals it governs.

THEN:(The conclusion here is true unless you prove a premise above wrong or show that they do not support the conclusion in some way)

-Government does not have the power to tell an individual or group of individuals what they can and cannot do with their property and therefore have no authority to regulate guns, or anything.

Now their big beef with this is that it "Let's anyone who wants a nuke to have a nuke and we can't have that". I agree in this regard, I don't think anyone should have such things, but my argument above supports that they should be allowed.

Now for the help I need. I remember that this question came up once before on here several months ago and someone mentioned an argument made by Mises or Hayek or Rothbard or someone that argues against the ownership of nuclear weapons and their ilk (NBC weapons). I have looked for the past week online trying to find it and to no avail. So, if anyone wants to help out that would be greatly appreciated!

[pdavis]

The nuclear weapons themselves are big and the weapon itself is extremely expensive, let alone storing and maintaining them. The costs of maintenance and storage would outweigh the benefits (if any) making them economically unviable to possess. The Austrian economist Walter Block recently wrote an article (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf) about this subject.

[sidster]

why can't anyone who wants nukes have one? So long as they are not
imposing on any other individual's liberty nukes or any other weapons
should be fine to own.

Government (at least United States' based on the Constitution) is there
to protect individual liberty. So if a person with a knife would not able
to threaten her neighbor.

... or am I missing your question?

[noxagol]

why can't anyone who wants nukes have one? So long as they are not
imposing on any other individual's liberty nukes or any other weapons
should be fine to own.

Government (at least United States' based on the Constitution) is there
to protect individual liberty. So if a person with a knife would not able
to threaten her neighbor.

... or am I missing your question?

No, I am just attempting to counter the whole, omg people can't have nukes what if someone just wnats to go out with a bang with suicide and all this other crap. pdavis repeated what i said but its not good enough for them. What's worse is I'm arguing with a libertarian about why gun control can't be done and he says my argument doesn't matter in this case because guns have no purpose other than to kill. I think I'm just going to drop it and move on to something else.

And thank you for that article, exactly what I was looking for.